The Instigator
Con (against)
45 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
64 Points

By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 17 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,615 times Debate No: 6376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (67)
Votes (17)




Please accept if you are willing to have good conversation

I stand to negate the following:
"Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels."

1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not onother CO2 producer.
2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", thsi i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars runing on nuclear fuel. My oponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide.
3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmitive resolution

Thanks and good luck.
Ps if you don't by any chane believe in any of my claims, just ask for the source in the comments, i really don't have my files on me, thanks.


First I will prove why the resolution should be affirmed, present a plan, then go over whatever he said.

The United States finds itself in a time of economic turmoil, environmental destruction, and feeling a decrease in its leadership it once felt so greatly. The common buzzword of this era is "change". President Barack Obama was voted in on the platform of that very thing for one reason, the American public has opened its eyes to the fact America needs to change. Naysayers of this philosophy are finally being looked past, and you have to look past the naysayer of the resolution to bring the lasting change America needs so greatly.

Our poor economy, horrible pollution, and decrease in hegemony can all be worked toward solving by passing the plan I am going to present today. I affirm the resolution "By 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels". I offer 3 independent advantages.

1) Oil dependence

Bernd Debusmann, a Reuters Staff Writer comments on our Oil Dependence when saying, "the United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil... Our economic engine is now 70 percent dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us"

2 Independent impact scenarios can be isolated from this
1. Peak oil- The scientific concenses concludes that Peak oil will happen soon. We all know that oil is not infinite, it will run out one day (most conclude it will peak on the year 2010). When this happens, our economy that is 70 percent dependent on oil, will be immediately shot resulting in an economic collapse. When this happens it is safe to say that the global economy will fail. We can only imagine the chaos that would occur post the worlds economy failing.
2. A country decides to stop sending us oil- Again, this would kill our economy

Katherine A. Siggerud says, "Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transportation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation`s oil consumption".

It is easy to see that our oil dependence threatens our economy to great levels. The answer is simple, end this oil dependence by switching to alternative fuels. When we can do that we can have a stronger, more independent economy.


The World Health Organization says that over one million people die every year because of air pollution, brought on by our cars. This air pollution will be multiplied when factoring in all the deaths caused by the looming threat of global warming. Fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming. Sure, you can believe global warming does not exist. You can believe not one country can solve for it. But my plan will not only stop this air pollution, but it will leave no question whether global warming is anthropogenic or not.

Hegemony and soft power

As of late, the United States of America has somewhat lost its superpower image throughout the world. But being the world leader of transitioning to an alternative fuel will raise our superpower status high, once again. Not only will we be a higher superpower, we will also gain soft power. We can accomplish both by receiving positive feedback because of our efforts to fight global warming (soft power) and hard power (hegemony) in being the world leader on the transition to alternative energy.

Hence the plan-
The United States federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in the US be powered by alternative fuels by 2040
Plank 1- The USfg will legalize hemp for use as biofuel
Plank 2- The USfg will remove all subsidies for corn based biofuels and put that money into hemp farmers
Plank 3- The USfg will give tax breaks to auto companies for its efforts toward biofuel based engines and infrastructure

The plan solves. When America transitions to an alternative fuel it will eliminate its oil dependence, pollution, and regain its hegemony. If hemp were to be legalized, it would be the best fuel to switch to, and that is the fuel I will defend.

Onto what my opponent said-

1. The transition is a HUGE improvement on the status quo- vote for the Aff and you get those 3 huge things done, vote for the neg and the status-quo will work itself out. Unless the neg can prove my plan is BAD, I win this round. Fossil fuels release Co2 into the atmosphere, hemp does it. It actually does the opposite. It is a plant, it does photosynthesis. This takes Co2 from the Air, proving wrong what the neg said is blatantly wrong. He says we should have cars that run on solar, ok? Great job defeating your own resolution. The framers of the resolution meant the debate to be "oil or something else?". Solar power would be "something else" as would hemp. The debate is already over as of this point. When he concedes that change is needed you have no way to vote but for the neg. A vote for the neg symbolizes your change of mindset that favors change. This alone is enough to vote for the neg, before any debate framework brought up by the aff.

2. I am sure any readers of this debate think that this is ridiculous. To stick the opposing side to ANYTHING the aff can think of is completely abusive. If the neg defines horse dung as an alternative fuel, i would have to defend that. Do not look at the negatives interpretation of the resolution, look to mine. I see it as the affirmative being allowed to pick an alternative energy that should be used. In round education is bolstered this way. Any readers of this debate will now learn about hemp and its uses. When this happens, true real world change occurs because now the readers understand how amazing hemp is. By my interpretation we have specialized debate and more in round education because we are not talking about SO MANY different alternative fuels, just talking about the one that is the best.

3. Another ridiculous abusive contention. The wording of the resolution even defeats it "BY 2040". As long as the transition is done by the year 2040 the negative team still wins. Dont let him try and say "my counterplan is for the transition to be done in the year 2041"
-First of all this is abusive toward me. As the aff I am tied into only 1 year and as the affirmative team you must look to any advocacies brought up by me before the advocacies of the negative. I am the one making the plan here, I should be favored.
-Second. Any arguments made against the solvency of my plan should also be tossed. Sure, he can prove another year is more key. But the bottom line is by voting for my plan you get stuff done, not by voting for the neg.

Now. Hemp solvency (you can ask for my sources i guess, you can find them all on the internet though, its all pretty common knowledge to those that support hemp legalization"

1. Hemp has 4 times the cellulose found in corn
2. Hemp revitalizes farmland by putting nutrients into the soil, increasing crop yields on that land
3. Hemp does not use nearly as many pesticides as corn, the current biofuel
4. Hemp will cause for corn to be eaten, not used as fuel.

(im actually getting hauled off to Sacramento RIGHT NOW, the benefits of hemp are endless, ill defend ANY arguments against hemp)
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you and good luck,

Yes I agree of the status quo being bad, however the affirmative does nothing to help as I shall explain.

Onto Pro's advantages (As long as the oter reads all that I have written this debate is over for Pro):

1) First of all you are predicting (or using others' predictions), this is as reliable as a monkey throwing a dart. My evidence is drawn from Louis Menand 2005, (I'm sure you've heard oh him if not, i can send you evidence over the comments) the evidence point to the fact that the people who predict are less accurate then the monkey throwing darts and also I am as good as any of your professors, furthermore the more fact you have the more you are likely to be wrong.

2) Major conflict scenarios are obsolete, Mandelbaum 99, his reasons for denying the next major conflict involving major powers are that 1. the costs have risen, 2. There are more democracies in place and democracies tend to stay away from wars, and 3. the recent weapon treaties promote transparency and deter large conflicts 4. the attitudes have changed, or simply put it, people aren't stupid to go to wars 5. Any answer of recent history such as Rwanda from my opponent are obsolete because the when you look to history trends the warfare is decreasing and finally my opponent's advantage is a scare tactic which calls for a major war b/c of oil dependence and pollution which is a major conflict that won't happen.

3) My opponent has to defend the resolution and not pick a specific fuel, by picking a specific fuel he spikes out of my disadvantages and reduces the ground for the debate, both of which are abusive. The debate specifically calls for "alternative fuels" not one of the fuels. The some of the well known fuels my opponent has to defend are: biodiesel, bioalcohol (methanol, ethanol, butanol), chemically stored electricity (batteries and fuel cells), hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil as well as others which are just not very popular.

4) Onto the Global warming:

Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than
before]". Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures
have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts,
not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on
what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure,
interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are

5)Onto Pollution: right, now ther have been people dying from pollution, where? Pro is making an illusion, the facts are clear, most of the people who die, are those in the foreign countries, because those countries don't mandate the exhaust pipe to be filtered, unlike USA, so my opponent can only help if the plan is for the entire world, which it is not.

6) Good old Hegemony and SP ;) Here is my first question why is are these powers good? according to you, we don't have it now so why aren't the bad impacts happening, why is there no major war now? Now come on, Secondly when do we have this power, back in 60-70th? well as i recall there were wars back then too... Another thing is that you don't specify why hegemony is good, thus you loose on it, to specify the adantages later is to be abusive since i will have way less tim eot answer it.... Again as a potential voter it is clear who has won, Con

7) Ooooohhhhh the plan, here is the problem, we're debating the resolution not the implementation of the plan, have you seen me attacking the solvency anywhere? No, in the 1st speech i specifically contested weather its a good idea or not, and you're on this different passage debating how we can do this... the way we can implement the plan is irrelevant

Now lets look to your plan: "vehicles sold in the US be powered by alternative fuels by 2040" well it says alternative fuels, not "hemp" you've just finished your self right there... where can you find me the definition that states alternative fuels (notice it is fuels, which means there must be at least two fuels) are only "hemp" you cannot and therefore i ought to win. Again as i have previously explained you cannot just pick one fuel, by doing so you conced that other fuels don't solve and thus you loose, and secondly you violate the resolution because you not debating it, this is not policy debate other wise i would have structured my 1st speech as such.

Onto his answers
1. Are you joking me? Solar power is alternative energy not fuel, fuel produces CO2, not solar power dude learn the definitions before making foolish remarks. Secondly my road to victory (although is now finished looking at my answers) is to prove the resolution is not good, since the resolution calls for "alternative fuels" as long as I prove its not those fuels that we need I win. My point is that there are ways to solve the problem however your way is bad, just because i agree to the need of change, that does nto mean you win, where do you debate at, go to your coach and ask him if don't get what I am talking about; Example: let say Pro contended that Iraq war was bad, ok their solution is to send in nuclear bombs, the con(me) says yes iraq is bad but sending in nuclear bombs doesn't solve(this is just example not any of my views), do I loose (like pro claims right now)? No, that's a ridiculous argument

Here is why you don't solve anything: 1. Alternative fuels need land therefore taking away land form crops, and causing shortages in food 2. You need to transport that energy and irrigate it etc. which when you include into account means there is no reduction in CO2 thus you loose by just bringing a plan that will do nothing

2. This debate is ridiculous because of your arguments; I'm not sticking you, i am affirming what the resolution is calling for, if you thinks its abusive why did you accept the debate? (sarcastically) yeah makes lots of sense; that's the resolution and if you don't think its fair you shouldn't have accepted the debate, should have let someone who else is more able then you debate

3. No it isn't, my contention is that setting the date to 2040 you must prove the reason for it (i wanted someone to give me additional reasons, i guess you're not the one) since you didn't i win. The date should be 2039 if the problem is so bad, why not do it earlier? really what is so special about 2040? wow Con wins
-Dude when you advocate something you must prove it not complain that the questioning of your plan is abusive :(
-"Tossed"? why because you can't answer it? Fine if the voter is to accept that then this is my claim : Toss away every other argument the Pro has made besides this one. Somewhat, if you vote Pro you get something done which won't help and if you vote Con then we look to this problem and find a better way to solve it

Onto his last hemp solvency
1. As I've explaned to pick one fuel to defend is to violate the reslutin thus I win
2. This tree needs land to grow and thus takes away the land to be grown for other crops which leads to more hunger and higher prices for crops all which lead to inflation thus You don't improve the status quo and Con wins
3. "endless benefits"? yeah if its so brilliant why don't people use it now in large quatities, maybe its more epensive? or maybe you have to use methods that produce CO2 to get the fuel? yeah real good fuel
4. IF HEMP IS SO GOOD WHY THEN THERE IS A FEDERAL BAN ON FARMING IT? oh yeah and when you cut teh tree down, don't you take out its CO2 consumption? And don't all trees eat CO2? a natural cycle?
5. Hemp is same as marijuana, if you increase the industrial production of it you give birth to marijuana man

Thank you for reading and vote Con


"...should have let someone who else is more able then you debate"
YES! Opened the floodgates :-)

(1) If you would ever explained, that would have helped your image just a little bit
(2) (Ok buddy)

1. Yes I have read this author. The negative does not see that it was a fatal flaw to rely on this AND ONLY THIS GENERIC and UNRESPONSIVE piece of evidence. If the negative had one piece of SPECIFIC evidence he may hold an ounce of believability but he does not. Menand 05 talks about why we really dont know whats going to happen in the future and if we make these wild predictions its comparable to a monkey throwing a dart. But this answers absolutely NOTHING I said.

Extend Debusmann 08 that says the US is 70 percent dependent on oil.
Extend Siggerud 08 that says the change needs to occur in the transportation sector because 68 percent of our oil consumption is there.

None of this was answered at all.

2. Oh yay once again more generic evidence that answers nothing. Ok, for the sake shortening this ridiculous debate I will concede I dont solve for nuclear war. Whoopee. I still solve for the ECONOMY FAILING.

Extend the consensus evidence that says peak will happen in 2010
And extend that a country can cut us off.
Cross apply Debusmann 08

Whoa buddy. These are completely DROPPED arguments. In debate silence is consent. He concedes that our economy is 70 percent dependant on oil and that oil will peak in 2010 this will give us about 50-100 years of oil before we are completely dry. What happens then? The ECONOMY FAILS. He also damns himself when he concedes the change needs to occur in the transportation sector. Uh oh, he dropped 5 arguments here. 5 Arguments that can never be answered again and dont let him because he should have done it in his last argument.

3) Extend that defending ONE certain fuel destroys all education in the round (reasons in last argument).
- He says I spike out of the disads- What disads? He did not run any disadvantages for me to spike out of and this is will be fatally severing to the neg.
- He lists common types of alternative fuels- Ok? Run your disads against them. It is too late now, you cant bring them up in your next speech. I only get 1 speech to answer and you should have ran them the first time. Sorry it is too late.
- I will take these types of fuels, but I do not have to defend EVERY single one of them. If some of them are bad and have the disadvantages, the US will not use them. I can defend the good ones because those are the ones that will ultimately be used in the US. Hemp will be used in the US and I firmly believe that.

Sorry dude, you failed on oil dependence. Its evident that I solve it and the 3rd sub point should not even be in this discussion but put elsewhere. The first two points talk about oil dependence and im crushing him on both of them. No matter the alternative energy he sticks me with it will solve oil dependence because he did not argue it at all. The impact of this was also conceded. The global economy will fail. The world will be in a depression much deeper than the one we felt in the 30s and it could have all been prevented by affirming the resolution.

Global warming

1) Evidence can be brought up for both sides. But the consensus among scientists is that global warming is not only happening but is anthropogenic. Believe the consensus of scientists, not just some random scientist that thinks they have debunked global warming. Even if you do have a doubt, the plan will leave no doubt either way. Why take the chance of it being real. Vote aff to acknowledge the threat of global warming and to make sure. If you have the tiniest grain of doubt that global warming can be real, the effects of global warming are extinction, so vote aff on magnitude.


1) If any of you have even opened your eyes lately you can see that our air is polluted. That is what we will solve. So many kids get asthma nowadays because of our horrible air. We can solve for that. Sure, we dont solve deaths in third world countries. But we solve whats happening on our homeland. Imagine being able to see a great distance without all of the smog in the air. Vote aff and thats what you get.

Hege/Soft power

1) Ok. I concede theres no impact to hege or soft power. Theres no turn on it, we still solve for it. So if you believe American Hegemony and soft power is good, vote for the aff. If not, this does not effect your decision because it is not turned onto me. So sure, I solve for something but forgot to impact it. I still solve, still vote aff.


WTF. Just because this is an online debate and the neg got first speech doesnt mean thats the way it should have been. Of course you dont attack solvency because there is no solvency to attack. Great job going on to attack hemp solvency later on. (Im going to put theory debate at the end so it is organized)

A2: A2 my A2s :-)

1. No I am not joking you. "Fuel produces c02" ARE YOU SERIOUS!? This is ridiculous. Hydrogen FUEL. A FUEL that he defines as FUEL emits no co2. Go ahead and say I need to learn definitions and not make foolish remarks. But you might as well just give up now in this debate because you're already working against yourself. You cant beat me and yourself at the same time. Great job here pressing self destruct.
- Hemp does not. Hemp has 4 times the cellulose than corn. If a farmer plants a quarter of his farm with hemp and 75 percent with corn, all of that corn will be eaten. Right now corn is not being eaten because its being used for a biofuel. Hemp can solve the ethanol hype and solve food prices
- Any crop takes co2 from the air offsetting the little trip the car has to take to transport it. That little trip wont even have an effect. Oh and guess what the means of transportation can also be ran by biofuels. Great job. You didnt take into account the resolution at all.

2. If you had half a brain stem you would understand the resolution is up for interpretation. Hence framework, theory, etc. You cant just say "thats the way it is" because no, it is not. If I can prove youre being abusive you have to answer that and answer how you are not being abusive. That is not "just the way it is" learn to debate. We all know this is the pofo topic, im taking policy framework. Argue it. How about you become worthy of debating framework. Im not going to lay down and take your abusive interpretation of the resolution.
Extend the abusive. Abuse is a voter for education and fairness. Drop the neg on this alone.

3. Why not do it earlier than 2040? Why not? You missed the point completely. The resolution says that the mandate should be done BY 2040. BY!!!!. As long as the mandate is done before 2040 then I still win. What he says is that the mandate should be done after 2040.
- It is abusive to tie me to one year when the resolution does not. Fail.
- Wtf. Vote for the aff. you have a mandate BY 2040. Vote for the neg you get one after. Game over.

Hemp solvency

OH NO!!! He totally kills himself on this one. With this, the debate is over.

1. Your 2-5 will prove why I can.
2. Hemp is just like a marijuana bush (although the look different), its not a true and takes hardly any land. Hemp solves food by putting corn used for biofuels back into the food market and not ethanol.
3. Ignorant. It is illegal in America. It has to be imported.
4. They think its weed. It is not, .03 thc. The government is ignorant like you. when its living it sucks co2 out of the air. that would be a GOOD THING.
5. It is not. You can smoke a hemp joint the size of a telephone pole and not get high.
Im sure will talk about hemp more later.

Plans good
1. Increases in depth education. We talk about one topic.
2. He is not overburdened, he was able to answer solvency to hemp
3. The only way we can ever make a change is to understand the issues. I solve that
4. A vote for the aff is a recognition that we need to make a
Debate Round No. 2


Floodgates"?... you mean like you're drowning? :)

1. The first card about Menand 05 is to answer any impacts you might throw at me such as the collapse of hegemony = bad things or global warming = extinction etc.
Yes we're dependent but you don't improve nothing and thus our dependency really gets you nowhere.

2. Ok... um what? how are you gone solve economy fail, is your plan mandating for the change across the board, meaning in all other countries? Lets look at China, they're about to surpass USA in energy consumption, how will you solve economic collapse? You solve nothing
LONDON, Nov. 6 — China will surpass the United States in 2009, nearly a decade ahead of previous predictions, as the biggest emitter of the main gas linked to global warming

Expanding ethanol use will raise food prices thus will kill our economy this is a turn
Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2007, p. A2
While the new moves enjoy considerable political support and the endorsement of environmental
groups, experts who watch the nation's food consumption worry that more ethanol use will drive
up food prices.

(Yeah I'd really like to see you say that in person kid) Menand answers your peak and your scenario for economy to fail son. You agree and thus these so called "dropped" args don't help you. How can one predict that peak will be in 2010, when they can't predict how people will behave, and by the way look online, the peak of oil is predicted to be at so many times that your claim is obsolete for example some claim it will be 2040, you claim it will be 2010, and you know what else, so say we hit the peak so what makes your prediction so good? nothing...

Fine if you don't believe me forget about comments I ll just start putting evidence into this debate, hope I won't run out of space

Peak oil is false –and wars are way more likely to trigger their impacts
Ismael Hossein-zadeh, author of the recently published The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism

Oil sells at a global price, the U.S. can't be insulated
Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and
Columbia University Earth Institute, June 2008,
3. Dude, we're debating with 72 hours to prepare? education? what ta... Education? how do i kill your education? you accept the resolution and debate me that its not fair? what are you doing, just because my arguments are true and you can't answer them doesn't me you have to call it foul...
-Dude, I explained how your plan is not going to help and will be detrimental and if you pick one of the fuels you're violating the resolution which ... wait for it..... kill MY education, because i want to debate the real topic so that i can get used to it, but hey no... I can't do that because smarty pants here wants to twist the resolution which i can't really do in a debate at least against the smarter debaters
-Um dude, you have 72 hours to answer the disad, don't worry i won't make new arguments (this debate probably being the messiest i ve been in since freshman year) i don't need to since i won, BUT the thing is that you didn't defend any of them and my claim was simple, the land for these fuels will be expanded and will trade of with food etc
-Dude the resolution calls for US to use anyone of the not just good ones or bad ones

No you don't solve it, dude your alt fuels will be coming from south America like it does so you'll just transfer our dependence, and again you're not Moses the prophet you're just a lousy kid who makes some predictions which are just as good as mine, remember Menand? Yes he tells me that i am as good as you and any other prediction maker, so i ll make a prediction, i predict that with alt fuels we will be dependent on Mexicans who will seek revenge and try to kill us, my second prediction is that US will deem the hydrogen fuel as the fuel to use and it will make the terrorists be able to launch attacks since a car running on hydrogen is like a bomb my evidence is as follows:

Many factors prevent high energy prices from undermining the economy
International Energy Agency, May 2008, Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios & Strategies to 2050,.p. 46
Shinnar, Professor of Chemical Engineering at City College of New York, 2003 (http://www.chem....

And since you have enough time and like 8000 characters yeah im pretty sure you can make up answers and no this is not new arguments i just predict just like you
Global warming muhahahah
1. NO here is why:
-The earth has been cooling, not warming
Sydney Morning Herald, 11-7, 8,
-CO2 doesn't drive climate change
The Daily Record of Rochester (Rochester, NY), October 16, 2008, p. online (Kevin Williams is
president of and director of meteorology for News 10NBC.)
The answer sure seems obvious to me: Carbon dioxide is not the main driver of climate change. It
is not even a significant driver. It only comprises 1 percent of the total of all greenhouse gases
compared to water vapor, which comprises 97 percent of the greenhouse gas total. Furthermore,
paleoclimatoloogical history shows us that warm periods actually preceded increases in carbon
dioxide as warming oceans expelled the dissolved gas they contained. History also shows us that
carbon dioxide concentration over the past few hundred years is near its lowest levels since the
Cambrian Era, some 550 million years ago. In fact, the concentration was almost 20 times higher
then, yet organisms thrived and the world did not end due to runaway global warming.
-No consensus in favor of climate change
Hanover Post (Ontario), September 19, 2008, p. A6
One, the science is anything but clear. In 2007, over 400 scientists presented a report to the U. S.
Senate in which they stated that consensus does not exist among earth scientists regarding global
climate change and that many top ranking scientists now doubt the validity of the U. N.'s IPCC
statements regarding climate change. This is eight times as many scientists as were on the U. N.

Pollution: Dude our air is clean ever looked outside?

1. if there is no impact its no good

What are you talking about?

1. yes your joking me, solar power is not alt fuel!
- Hemp does too you have to plant it and it will take space and you have to transport it, good job conceding it
- That little trip? wut? dude yes it will, the net sum = no reduction of CO2, you have by the time fuel is harvested it will not help reduce CO2 and again a fuel is a fuel which = CO2
2. This is f****** PF not Policy, here we debate weather the resolution should be adopted or not , in this case it shouldn't. The word "Resolved" means we have to debate about the stuff following the word
I'm not abusing you, i not even seeing you, how can i abuse you dude, by the way online you have too much time to be abused by anyargument you have a lot of time to reasearch so don't give me that bull

3.Dude what makes the 2040 so special, as far as the facts go, the industry won't have to do anything till 2040, and why not 2050 i mean why 2040, since you provide no reason game over for u

1.Hemp land will trade away with food and u loose if its imported then we put ourselves reliant on someone else proving you loose u say Gov is bad yet you help strengthen it?

Theory: Plan good? no!
1. More stuff = better education
2. u dont make my unerdstanding any better when u don't look at the whole pic
3. a recognition to make "a"? dude a vote for aff


Ok. Short and sweet.

1. Non-responsive. You think you can answer any "bad thing" by saying its like a monkey throwing a dart. You cant, you have argue oil dependence. You didnt, You conceded me solving it by not answering it. You need to stop saying "you dont solve" and actually explain it for once. I have explained why I solve, he didn't answer theres no way to look but aff.

2. New argument- whatever, its not hard to answer. You conceded that 70 percent of the economy is dependent on oil and that 68 percent of that comes from cars. We cut down the US oil dependence to something less than 20 percent. You also conceded peak oil and that another country can cut us off on the oil that we get. We save the US economy. That means the country WE live in will be safe. What am I supposed to do about China? Nothing. The resolution calls for me to pass this plan in America. i do that. China can solve their own problems but my plan will also help china. You also conceded that when the US economy goes down, the worlds will and that means china is screwed too. Who will buy all the good from China if the US economy is shot? No one, and Chinas will be effected as well. They can transition to alt energy on their own also.

3. They will transition on their own. US leadership solves, they see the US do it and they will too.

4. Hemp doesnt. The only reason ethanol raises food prices now is because ethanol is made from corn. That means corn is not being eaten, and is driving up food prices. Not all ethanol is corn also. Sugar cane, switchgrass, and hemp can all be used. You cant stick me with just corn, because America will see its bad to use corn for biofuels and will switch to one of the 3 alternatives. This fits your framework as well, Im using "alternative "fuel(S)"

5. Make your answers after I say them. The bottom line is that you present no evidence otherwise or even choose to answer what I said. Sure, it can be in 2040. What you must look at is that oil WILL run out one day. It is imperative that we are ready for when it runs out. The monkey card does not help you here. Unless you were able to prove that oil is infinite, theres a reason to vote aff. And you didn't. Judges, vote aff to be ready for when oil runs out, or another country cuts us off. He drops the second completely. Russia can cripple our economy being that we get a lot of oil from them. And so can the Middle East. Once again, these are dropped. You have to understand that dependence is bad, dependence on anything is bad. But when our economy, transportation, and overall wellbeing of our country is dependent on one thing, we must fix that. And we do that with the aff and transitioning to alternative fuels.

6. He says peak oil is false- Dont post an entire article for everyone to read. Take out quotes that you want is to see. Ill just answer the tag, im sure thats what the article is about.
- Oil will run out. Again. Thats the point. Our economy is tied up on something that will run out one day. When it happens doesnt really matter, it will happen.
- "Wars are more likely to trigger the impacts"- Ok. Im sure the readers are seeing how the neg kills himself here. If we get into one of these "wars" that are "more likely" to occur, our economy fails. This alone is reason to vote for me. Believing in peak oil no longer even matters when he concedes that a war can kill our economy because our system is so dependent on oil.

5. Yea, your link didnt work for me and im not sure if its just my computer or what. Either way, the argument is irrelevant. Who cares if oil is at a global price, when we have alternative fuels that wont even matter. Im not sure where youre going with this but i can guarantee its no reason to vote me down.

6. Youre not even making arguments. You just say "i want to be able to make them" and never do. So I really dont care at this point. I thought you seemed intelligent and as if you could debate theory, but i guess not. You dont even understand "education" What im saying is that if you run all of these specific solvency attacks to all of these different types of alternative energy we get no depth in the debate. So people reading would learn nothing. But you didnt do that, so I am not winning theory debate. I was protecting myself against potential abuse, and there was no abuse. Theory debate is a wash, I fall into your framework. And am winning it.
- Ok. You didnt run the abusive case, but there was the potential. I was merely protecting myself. Its no reason to freak out.
- (A2 next 2 subpoints) I explained already how the free market system will not accept a crop that takes the land for food. There are good alternative energies out there that have only positive effects, those are the ones that will be used. You expect to win the debate by saying "corn ethanol" is bad and not acknowledge the rest of the types of alternative energy at all.

My fuels will come from South America apparently. This makes no sense and has no logic behind it. There are fuels, such as hemp when legalized, that can be grown on American soil. Switchgrass can also be grown on American soil now without legalizing anything. There are plenty.

Im not too sure if my opponent had some type of anxiety attack or what. But he believes that hydrogen cars will be blown up by Mexican terrorists or something or another... Then he goes back to that one card he keeps talking about saying that his predictions are as good as mine. These are new arguments and should not be looked at, but for the sake of leaving no doubt in his mind that he lost, ill just finish it off. (this source should actually work)

Furthermore, the following excerpt from a recent SearchChicago article ( discusses GM's effort to make their high-pressure hydrogen tanks safe:

"The idea is to make the tanks virtually indestructible. During testing, the tanks have been shot and dropped out of airplanes among other things to ensure overall safety." The article also talks about how there is so little hydrogen in the tanks, and it will dilute quickly so that the hydrogen is hardly flammable. Hydrogen is flammable, but its so light it will dilute so quickly into the air it will not catch fire.

So this just shows how Hydrogen fuel cannot by used as a terrorist weapon.

Global Warming

Thank you for presenting evidence, a positive change in your strategy. I will just fall back on what I said last time, the debate over Climate change might not ever end. But if it is true the magnitude of the impacts are huge. It would be best to leave no doubt in our minds. Even if you believe it is fake and theres no reason to solve for it, it is no reason to vote me down. He has to standing turns on global warming, I am just not solving for it. So if you are one of those people, deal with it as if it was just never brought up.


OK. Ill let the judges decide whether the air in their area is clean or not, or if there has been an undeniable raise in asthma because of air pollution

Hege/Soft power

Theres no reason why it is bad. If you think that it is good vote for me, if not the neg makes no turns so you have to default neutral

I have adopted his framework. But i have proven that what he said against alt energy is wrong. No abuse, no hemp. But hemp will probably be used anyways.

"That little trip"- The car will be ran by the alt fuel

On 3. 2040 is the date proposed, that date has not been proven bad, default to the date given for the aff. It is good because it ensures stuff will be done by 2040

Hemp can be grown on bad land that isnt farmed, and gives nutrients to the soil. Farmers will put it in the crop rotation.

Dropped theory, im on your framework

Good is done by the aff, nothing by the neg. Vote Aff
Debate Round No. 3
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
Pro crushed Con
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
(Katherine A. Siggerud, Vehicle Fuel Economy: Reforming Fuel Economy Standards Could Help Reduce Oil Consumption by Cars and Light Trucks, and Other Options Could Complement These Standards August 2, 2007 Statement of, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues; GAO Report GAO-07-92ln)

"Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transpor-tation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation`s oil consumption, and cars and light trucks consume 60 percent of the oil consumed in the transportation sector"

If you know someone with the feebates policy aff you can get the card (if youre wanting it for debate...) Or if you are you can message me with an email and ill send it to you or something.
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Where is the evidence for the "60%"?
Posted by bekkal 7 years ago
To the con i like your points but the pro is giving an example of a good alt fuel and the resolution asks for alt fuels in gen so he can use any he wants. but both of yall are missing the point that the res states passenger cars and lite trucks which is only around 60% so we are still dependent on oil.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion, Appology accepted. In the beginnig when I first joined this site, I was ridiculed and insulted to no end. I was one of the few hard core conservitives on this site who would debate the most controversial unwinnable subjects so dearly held by screaming bleeding hart liberals.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
hahaha. I wouldnt recommend that sadolite. I forgot one major drawback to hemp, and that is that it will give you explosive diarrhea before it gets you high!

And yes, I researched what you said a little bit and found out it was true.. When referring to the oil when just melted down... When converted to a biodiesel the problems are non-existant, "The biodiesel produced today can be used in unmodified diesel engines in almost all temperatures. It can be used in the individual automobile or larger engines and machines" -

If the other problems remain existent, they can be solved when hemp biofuel is more widely accepted/ used.

"The vehicle for demonstrating hemp as a fuel source is a 1983 Mercedes-Benz 300TD, a station wagon with a turbocharged diesel engine that runs on 100 percent hemp oil. The Hemp Car stopped Saturday at Eco'Fields, a Near North Side store that sells hemp products and will be displayed Sunday near Buckingham Fountain as part of a 1 0,000-mile tour of North America that began July 4 in Washington, D.C. Sigler says the Mercedes wagon gets 27 miles per gallon on the highway with hemp-based biodiesel, same as it would on No. 2 diesel fuel, the kind you get from gas station pumps. The only engine modifications he made use synthetic hoses in place of natural rubber ones, which the vegetable oil in biodiesel damages."- Chicago Tribune

Hemp runs in diesel engines, those synthetic hoses can be used in our diesel engines. So hemp can work. The hemp biofuel does not wax when cold, the oil might, but biodiesel does not.

I think those little things you talk about sadolite can be easily solved.

I am glad we had this discussion, and I sincerely apologize for my harsh words earlier.

Hemp is my debate case this year, I live it, and it is my passion; I should not have been blatantly rude to you though, and for that I am deeply sorry.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
Ok you made an effort. but the major draw back is that bio fuels are extremely corrosive to rubber seals in trucks and automobiles it also is a great rust remover thus causes the inside of of gas tanks to flake and clog fuel lines and fuel injectors. It is incompatible with every single vehicle on the road today. If trucks and cars are to run on it they will all have to be converted to accept it in order for them to run with any reliability and the other major draw back is cold weather, it turns to wax. Hemp is good for ropes and cloths though, I'll give you that as a reason to legalize it. Better to just smoke it I say!!
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
I think I have maintained an understanding mindset throughout all of this discussion.

The major concessions i have to make is that biofuels cannot change the world as of tomarrow. It will take time and a lot of money to put in the infrastructure. I also have to agree that there is technology even greater than that we have today, mostly what Roy has been saying. If that technology is put into place then it could be absolutely amazing. However, I stand firm that when hemp is legalized extra efforts will be put into those technologies and creating the infrastructure.

Honestly, hemp legalization is my passion.

What does scare me about hemp legalization however is the fact that farmers may just switch to only growing hemp and not corn because of the higher profits they will get. Although it is feasible for them to only grow in that small amount of time between growing seasons, I fear that farmers will just grow it year round in order to make greater profits. That will immediately end our oil dependence, but screw over our high food prices. If hemp is to be legalized, I think some precautions need to be made in order to ensure farmers do not just decide to grow hemp, and only hemp.

Another issue is that hemp has multiple uses. If there is a greater market for, say hemp paper, than biofuels, farmers can just sell their hemp to a paper company, screwing over both major advantages of hemp. Now I do believe that this scenario is much less likely, but in order to ensure this cannot happen, I believe the USfg has to put in precautions in order to ensure there will always be a large market for hemp biofuel, and that farmers will get the largest profits for giving selling it to biofuel companies.

I really do not know if the government can put through those precautions. But one thing is certain.. Hemp should be legal and if there is ever to be a biofuel industry, legalization of hemp is key. Will all of our cars run on hemp? Probably not.. But it can provide tons of
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion, Now that you have told us all the wonderful things about bio fuel, now tell us it's draw backs. I am being serious. One must look at both sides to be honest to ones self about this. If you don't make the effort I will assume you don't want to know the truth about it's monumental mechanical and infrastructure problems and only have a political agenda like most politicians.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
I understand, maybe when hemp is legalized we will see the need to develop this technology faster, being that we have a ton of potential energy just waiting to be used, and the technology will be developed quickly with the increase in interest in the field. The first step is legalization nonetheless.

I cited Jack Herer, although throughout most of hemp literature out there you can find the same number. I think if you just google it you can see where I got it from.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Morell4 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by bekkal 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DdReUbMaMtEeR 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ddd 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by draxxt 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by arlington 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by A_Rootless_Oak 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alexmertens559 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dkerwi8993 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70